Let me start with a positive comment. Remember, this is the best I could come up with:

If we had gotten the pope we DESERVE, we would now have Pope Snoop Dogg.

And thus ends the positivity.

Francis, like his homeland of Argentina, is a total disaster. He has overseen the near-total destruction of the Church in Argentina. He hates and despises the Tridentine Mass, which is to say that he hates the Mass - let's not mince words, and is a rabid persecutor of anyone in Argentina who shows ANY signs of tradition. A priest in Argentina literally risks the end of his career if he wears a cassock in public. He has forbidden the Tridentine Mass in Argentina, which is an act of direct disobedience, specifically against the papal decree Summorum Pontificum, but embraces horrific "charismatic" and "Superfun Rockband"-type liturgical sacrilege.

Which brings us to his regard for the papacy, and the Church itself. He said yesterday in his bizarre little speech, again and again, that he was the Bishop of Rome, which is true, but in being the Bishop of Rome the pope is the head of the Universal Church, not just the city of Rome. Francis does not believe this, and even made a reference to the idea that the pope is "first among equals". This means that he regards the Church as a mere loose confederacy, and also that he thinks the Church is, or should be, a democracy. The proof of this is, again, his blatant disobedience to Summorum Pontificum. He will never do anything to clean up the sodomite infiltrators in the Church outside of Rome because he doesn't feel that the pope has any authority outside of Rome. Bottom line here: many bishops and archbishops have been kept in line over the past eight years because Benedict was relatively aggressive in booting out extremely bad bishops. Benedict was feared in a healthy way. This guy is basically the big green light to every Marxist-homosexualist to just go ahead and do whatever, because they know Francis will never remove them or even chastise them, because Francis doesn't believe that the pope has any universal authority and is merely the bishop of the city of Rome proper - at least that is the excuse that will be given when nothing is done about abuses and heresies **that Francis is sympathetic towards.**

BUT, like all insecure leaders who say that they reject authority and obedience, reports from Buenos Aires are that he is an iron-fisted totalitarian against traditionalists, precisely because he has no confidence in or respect for his own authority, and thus assumes that no one else does either, and thus wields power against his perceived enemies only from brute force. Again, this is TEXTBOOK 20th century Marxist worldview and psychology. It is also the diametrical opposite of the virtue of MEEKNESS, which is power under control.

Next, he is an "ecu-maniac", which is to say that he is in the "all religions are equal and can't we all just get along" camp. In Buenos Aires he knelt before and received the "blessing" of a Superfun Rockband Church "pastor", and even received "communion" from a Protestant. There are pictures floating around of that episode. This is terrifying. He clearly does not have a strong belief in or understanding of Our Lord, His Church, the Mass or the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. But, as I have stated repeatedly, almost none of the men ordained in the 1960s, 70s or 80s do.

Next, he's a Jesuit. Now, I must disclose that I have a deep personal, seething, visceral hatred of Jesuits, but my hatred of them is a corollary to the fact that they long ago descended into truly evil heresies and apostasy. Jesuits, in addition to being a cult of sodomites who hate God, are also wait for it Marxists. Now Francis has in the past put up some token resistance to so-called "Liberation theology", which is just Communist Totalitarianism in religious drag, but he is huge, huge, huge on "social justice", which is merely code for Marxism. This guy's worldview revolves around giving people free stuff because it's nice, which as we have discussed is contrary to logic and reason, specifically in the subset of mathematics, and thus is contrary to Our Lord who is but FIRST the Logos, with the Divine Caritas (charity) proceeding out of the Logos. Bottom line, there will be zero positive assistance to the world from Francis with regards to the inevitable economic collapse. Not only will there be nothing helpful coming from him, he will almost certainly come out in favor of more debt, more "free stuff", and more rhetoric about how people are "entitled" to physical and service commodities (which are someone else's man-hours, remember) as "rights".

But Ann! He has gone on record against homosexual "marriage" and abortion!

Wow. Is this really how far we have sunk? The Roman pontiff is on record as being against sodomy and killing babies and we cite this as proof of ORTHODOXY? Really? I wonder if he also believes in gravity. Does belief in gravity constitute a conservative worldview now?

Benedict thought that between the "Natural Solution" (the passage of time yielding the death or retirement of the bad guys) and the appointments he was able to make over the last eight years that he had set up the College of Cardinals to elect a successor that was very much in the Ratzingerian camp. Benedict was wrong. Not only did they not elect a Ratzingerian, they elected the anti-Ratzinger. In the 2005 conclave Francis came in second to Ratzinger, which is to say that Francis was the "opposition". In what must have Benedict's mind reeling today, after eight years of purging and priming the College of Cardinals, the very men Ratzinger placed turned around and elected the anti-Ratzinger. This proves, as I have said all along, that playing prevent defense, namely the "natural solution" of waiting for the bad guys to die is UNSOUND. In war, you fix your bayonets, say your prayers, and you charge.

Tridentine Mass-goers and clergy, this guy will be on the warpath against us at some point. Prepare. Brace. He may attempt to undo Summorum Pontificum either directly or through intense passive aggression. Any hopes of reconciling the good guys in the SSPX is now totally over. Beyond that, the splinter factions will now claim that "they were right", and sadly even more schism will result, and more people will remain outside the Church. So sad.

We got what we deserved, and probably better than we deserve. God's chastisement of His people is sending them bad priests, bishops, and now, in all likelihood, a bad pope. What do you expect? Look around. The world is awash in staggering sin and blasphemy and no one will lift a finger to do anything about it. And, as my last essay on penance proved via my email box, no one is sorry or has any desire to make reparation to Our Lord for any of it. No one has the slightest comprehension of the notion of taking on the burden of guilt for sins that they didn't directly commit, which blows my mind because that is LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the Incarnation. The mind reels at the collective obtuseness needed to miss that glaring point.

No one has the slightest comprehension of the idea of seeing Our Lord in agony and simply stepping over to Him and asking, "What can I do to help You? What can I do to make You feel better? Let me take some of Your burden. Let me go with You."

Nope. So long as we all leave Him alone in His Passion, He will leave us to our self-absorption and indifference.

I wonder if the Latin Mass schismatics are kicking themselves now because they didn’t take Benedict up on his eagerness to bring them back into the fold. A couple of months ago, the Pope was someone who wanted them back badly. This guy does not have that as a priority.

I too am a non-catholic, so my knowledge is also limited, but am in total agreement with all you wrote.

Ann makes at least 7 reasoned points. (For the idiots reading this, reasoned does not necessarily mean correct). Yet most of the bozos responding only attacks Ann as a nut case. Not one of them writes where she is wrong. Yup, sounds like good libtards methods to me.

I pray and am sure Ann does also that she is found to be wrong. But methinks she may be dead on correct.

Having suffered through many interpretations of the proceedings and many abominations, not the least of which I consider to be the “music” they bring in, in favor of the beautiful traditional music, Western music at its origin, some argue, I have come to realize, and teach, that it is the Eucharist that is the center.

All else either takes away or adds to that. After we see the end of all of this horror, perhaps having stemmed from the Church in the West misguidedly working with local govts in economics (using them to enact social justice) the Church, knowing best, as you say, will attend to the mass as need be.

By commenting on this thread, everyone here really has taken an action of asking her opinion, so we do obviously care in some way.

Since it was transmitted electronically, no paper was involved, so relative worth can’t be established in that way. I know a few things about Ann Barnhardt. I don’t know anything about you. While I am not Catholic, I am also not a Catholic basher.

I often learn from those who disagree with each other on points of reference that are specifically Catholic, and of which I have no real understanding.

But your post offended me, because I learned nothing, except that you are a jerk. Consider yourself chastised, and retreat to your own hole.

27
posted on 03/15/2013 5:44:19 PM PDT
by sarasmom
(The obvious takes longer to discover for the obtuse.)

I’m sick to death of Ann Barnhardt and her increasingly insane screeds. Her voice alone assaults my nerves to the point I rush to turn her off. Ann get a new job or buy a Starbucks franchise or something to keep yourself busy.

28
posted on 03/15/2013 5:51:40 PM PDT
by Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)

I have no use for criticism of the Church at this time, especially having read Ann's extremely proud and disrespectful take on it in the past.

I skimmed it, and saw blasphemous trash, as I had before.

My comment is, she, and others on the left and far right and deranged, angry, what have you, they do not have to be Catholic and they do not have to like the Church.

I can read criticism of the government, the pundits and the voters. It is a democratic republic.

The Church is not democratic. It never was and it never will be.

Criticism from a woman who is angry is nothing I want to read.

I made my comment starting out with: I didn't read it.

I also acknowledge that many otherwise informed people have no regard for the history of the Church and its leaders all of whom have education and humanitarian credentials pages long. She criticizes the Mass. It is a low priority and it proves to me she needs to get a life and quit dumping her finances onto misguided charity cases and take a lesson from the Pope who wouldn't dump all his resources onto an unappreciative and undeserving case who would ruin him or the Church, as Ann did and as the US is doing in concurrence with the USCCB in catering to illegals who care nothing for this country.>

Ann’s 8 part video series on today’s economic situation is dead-on accurate.I don’t think she is nuts. She just see further over the horizon than most. And she lives her beliefs.

Not being Catholic, I cannot comment on her inside baseball on such matters. But I too, was, troubled when I heard the new Pope was a Jesuit and I hope he has not been contaminated by the American version of that order.He seems like a good and humble man from first impressions.

It is Georgetown University of covering up the cross for Obama fame, and Notre Dame of having pro-abortion Obama as the commencement speaker in 2009—both of Jesuit fame—that give me pause about all things Jesuit. And where did Sandra Fluke come from—Jesuit Georgetown University.

The new Pope will have to directly confront homosexual groups within his own church and adherence to church doctrine in all matters. For America, he will have to insist that “cafeteria” teachings are not acceptable. Doctrine is either believed or it is not. It is not optional from his position as the Pope. Even politicians who promote abortion can no longer find sanctuary from errant cardinals and bishops giving them moral and political cover.

I wish him and all Catholics well.

31
posted on 03/15/2013 5:56:46 PM PDT
by exit82
("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)

That Pope Francis removed Cardinal Bernard Law from his position at the Basilica Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome tells me he is going to deal harshly with people like Law. Those who ignored pedophile priests when in leadership positions will be removed from their present positions. I think Ann Barnhardt should take another look at Pope Francis' dealings with church pedophilia.

Ann Barnhardt's criticism of Pope Francis for forbidding the use of the Tridentine Mass in Argentina has its reason. The 1962 Tridentine Mass is sometimes referred to as the "usus antiquior" (older use) or "forma antiquior" (older form), to differentiate it from the newer form of the Roman Rite in use since 1969 when Pope Paul VI initiated the newer revised Mass, as a result of the Second Vatican Council. For this reason, the Tridentine Mass became obsolete and the reason that, then, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires wanted to stay with the new form.

Most people associate the Tridentine Mass with that form said in Latin. Pope Paul VI actually wrote the new form in Latin and said it was OK to celebrate the new form in Latin.

The new Mass form has had its criticism from the very start with the "the Ottaviani Intervention" in June of 1969. The argument said that the new form was in variance to the Council of Trent (1545-63). This criticism has been voiced by Traditionalist Catholics ever since. To understand the issues voiced by the Traditionalist Catholics and Ann Barnhardt against the Pope Paul VI form, one would need the expertise of a Catholic theologian. Any experts out there?

33
posted on 03/15/2013 6:06:32 PM PDT
by jonrick46
(The opium of Communists: other people's money.)

Pope Francis are polar opposites. Pope Francis, in his simplicity and reasonableness, is the stark rebuke to the current President's avaricious thirst for power, extravagance and living large, while people are suffering.

And he is spiteful. He shuts down the White House to the people because he wants to manipulate the situation. But he could pay for those visits easily by cutting a $27 million program to teach Moroccans how to make pottery, a program that is in itself rather arrogant and tinged with racism. WE are going to teach Moroccans how to make a tagine? They've been making pottery for millennia. It's like Morocco spending $27 million to teach Canadians how to play Hockey. But His Royal Hawaiian Highness would not even consider cutting the silly pottery subsidy. No, he has to "stick it to" the ungrateful population.

You know, before you make assumptions, you might inform yourself. Even Rush Limbaugh, a non-Catholic for sure, paid enough attention to realize that
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was DESPISED by the Jesuit Liberation Theologians because he stood up to them.

He was basically exiled by his fellow Jesuits to the outlying provinces, teaching math and chemistry to high school kids.

John Paul II, that great bastion of eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiiillllll Liberation Theology is the one who silently overrode the Jesuits and made the despised one a bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal, paving the way for him becoming pope.

He is no Liberation Theologian, he is the exact opposite. He comes from the same theological direction as Ratzinger and was one of Ratzinger’s strong backers in 2005 but lacks Ratzinger’s liturgical sense.

The SSPXers and radical Traditionalists (Barnhardt) have taken out after him as the Devil Incarnate. What they are doing is pure and simply evil. They are revealing their fundamentally schismatic inclinations. I am appalled at how they have treated their own Holy Father on the very first day of his pontificate. A pox on Ann Barnhardt and her ilk.

I agree completely. This woman has taken her eyes off the cross...forgotten to be humble beneath the feet of God and let her ego lead her to the conclusion that she is a better judge of Popes than the men the holy spirit has actually tasked for the job.

I wonder how long it has been since she made an honest confession?

38
posted on 03/15/2013 6:16:37 PM PDT
by longfellowsmuse
(last of the living nomads)

There are many off-the-wall Jesuits. There are also a number of good and holy Jesuits: Mitch Pacwa at EWTN, Joseph Fessio at Ignatius Press, the late Fr. John Hardon, Paul Mankowski at one of the Roman Universities.

I could name a dozen more. Too few, yes. But simply assuming that all Jesuits are dissenters from Catholic teaching or proponents of Liberation Theology is just as bad as what the proponents of Liberation Theology do: distort the truth.

To pass judgment on a person based on guilt by association is an unChristian thing to do, whether one is Catholic or not.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.